A new report alleges that Apple is in negotiations with content providers, and is in "advanced talks" with News Corp., to offer 99 cent TV show rentals ahead of an anticipated Apple TV update.

The new service, according to Bloomberg, would allow customers to rent shows through iTunes for 48 hours. News Corp. is the owner of the Fox network.

Author Peter Burrows said Apple's talks coincide with a new iPod touch with a higher-resolution screen, as well as a new cloud-centric Apple TV with less internal storage starting at $99.

In addition to Fox, CBS and ABC could also become an option in the streaming service, the report said, as the parent companies of both networks are also a part of the discussions. Apple and Disney, the owner of ABC, have a close relationship, as Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs is the single largest shareholder of stock in the Walt Disney Co.

Rumors of a 99 cent TV show rental deal previously surfaced earlier this summer. That report claimed that the offer would work just like existing iTunes movie rentals: users would have 30 days to start watching the rental, and would then have 24 hours to finish it. But unlike the movie rentals, the TV shows would be streamed instead of downloaded.

Apple has allegedly attempted to broker a deal with TV networks for months to offer a subscription TV plan, but has had no luck.

Apple's 99 cent TV show rentals could be a backup plan of sorts for the company, which is rumored to release a new set top box dubbed iTV as soon as September. Numerous reports have alleged that the device will run Apple's iOS mobile operating system and be capable of running software from the App Store.

Reports have also suggested that the new iTV will have limited internal storage in order to keep the cost of the device down. The new set top box with a small form factor is rumored to have a starting price of just $99. The device would apparently make up for its alleged lack of storage by placing an emphasis on streaming media.

Great for shows I don't want to own, there are far more of those than shows I want to purchase.I wonder what if any new Movie deals will be made. Mostly though I just want Iapps to run on the Apple TV.

turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility

There must be a huge number of people out there who aren't nearly as cheap as I am.

So many people complained about Hulu+ at $9.99 a month - that would only buy you ten episodes a month with this plan. Even light TV viewers would need to spend a lot of money to make it through a month at 99 cents/episode.

As much as I look forward to an iOS based TV gizmo, Apple wouldn't get me to buy shows at that price. I would think they would have to somehow outlaw Hulu and NetFlix to make it work at all.

There must be a huge number of people out there who aren't nearly as cheap as I am.

So many people complained about Hulu+ at $9.99 a month - that would only buy you ten episodes a month with this plan. Even light TV viewers would need to spend a lot of money to make it through a month at 99 cents/episode.

As much as I look forward to an iOS based TV gizmo, Apple wouldn't get me to buy shows at that price. I would think they would have to somehow outlaw Hulu and NetFlix to make it work at all.

I kind of feel the same way. I'm so used to getting shows for free thanks to advertising support, that I kind of reject the idea of paying for the same show just through a different delivery method (especially since you'll have to keep the original delivery method as well, at least for the time being).

What I would like to see, since it seems the new AppleTV will run iOS, would be the option to either pay your 99c and not have adverts, or get it for free with some sort of iAd content injected.

From the rumours though, it's starting to sound like the new AppleTV could offer some really interesting developments though.

I second that, however
$0.99 x 20 = $19.80
$19.80 = £12.83 does seem rather cheap though at $20/£13 for a 20 episode box set.

the difference is that you then OWN the box set, it's not taken away in 24 hours.
i'm not paying a buck for every episode i want to watch, probably not even if i own it afterwards.

this will be sold as "if you only watch 5 weekly TV shows, at 4 episodes per month, your "cable bill" will only be $20!"
works great if you don't want to watch the today show, local and national nightly news, the daily show, or anything similar...

I second that, however
$0.99 x 20 = $19.80
$19.80 = £12.83 does seem rather cheap though at $20/£13 for a 20 episode box set.

The difference being you would OWN the box set.

For me, I watch very few shows and cable is expensive here. I could probably get by on 8 dollars or 12 dollars a month and nothing in the summer - which would be WAY cheaper than $40 for cable with 100 channels I have never once watched.

There must be a huge number of people out there who aren't nearly as cheap as I am.

So many people complained about Hulu+ at $9.99 a month - that would only buy you ten episodes a month with this plan. Even light TV viewers would need to spend a lot of money to make it through a month at 99 cents/episode.

As much as I look forward to an iOS based TV gizmo, Apple wouldn't get me to buy shows at that price. I would think they would have to somehow outlaw Hulu and NetFlix to make it work at all.

No one should be looking at these different services as one-size-should-fit-all. Hulu+ would be great if you didnt want to pay for cable TV, are mostly interested in TV shows and are fine with being tied to the internet to watch them. Netflix is great is you want movies and the option for physical disc. iTunes Store has been great if you pay for cable but occasionally miss a show you need to catch up on and/or want/need to watch it offline.

So if I miss a TV show paying Apple 99¢ to watch that same show over 10x the price of Hulu+, likely in better quality and without commercials makes sense to me.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

For me = way. I simply don't watch that many "shows." A couple times a month maybe, and I'm just not into reruns.

What I'd really like the iTV to do is stream sports live in HD. 720p is just fine. And if the iOS is enabled, this could be done directly by the leagues. Their app could do the streaming, and add the iAds to boot. I'd pay for a stream of a hockey game or a football game...or even some of those isoteric olympic things that come around every 4 years...but it would need to be live, not taped coverage.

I kind of feel the same way. I'm so used to getting shows for free thanks to advertising support, that I kind of reject the idea of paying for the same show just through a different delivery method (especially since you'll have to keep the original delivery method as well, at least for the time being).

What do you value more, 99¢ or 15 minutes of your time not spent watching adverts per hour of TV.

Or 5 minutes of your time?

Or 2 minutes of your time

And then there is the disruption cause by adverts, getting nicely settled in to the storyline and BOOM - BUY SOME SHITE.

I will pay $30 a month for 30 channels of programming and I get to pick the channels. You can limit that to a maximum of 6 hours of use per day.

If someone watches 2 hours of programs per day, that's $60 per month based on the .99 cent model. I can get 200 channels 24 hours a day for that much.

Try harder.

Then this service isnt for you. If your intent is to watch copious amounts of TV then youre best to be connected to a service designed to satisfy that. If you want a service that allows for taking current content off the grid and allowing for an occasional á la carte service then the iTS may fit your needs.

Seriously people? Why is there this mental block that makes you think it must be everything your cable/sat, and Hulu and Netflix all rolled into one with the added benefit of being cheaper and allowing for local storage on a portable device? THERE IS NO ONE SERVICE THAT WILL EVER BE EVERYTHING TO EVERYONE.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

What do you value more, 99¢ or 15 minutes of your time not spent watching adverts per hour of TV.

Or 5 minutes of your time?

Or 2 minutes of your time

And then there is the disruption cause by adverts, getting nicely settled in to the storyline and BOOM - BUY SOME SHITE.

99¢?

.

That will become a part of it for sure, and how much you value your time will change based on this. It's interesting that you say there are 15 minutes of advertising per hour, and that's true, though in practice I watch pretty much everything on the DVR, so I screen through all of the adverts, so it takes very little of my time.

By creating a system where you have no choice to screen through the adverts, there should actually be the need for less adverts per hour of shows, since the advertisers will likely pay more for an advert they know someone will have to look at.

Plus, the amount people value their time will differ from person to person. Personally, I don't put any dollar value on my time when I'm away from work, but can see how some people do.

No one should be looking at these different services as one-size-should-fit-all. Hulu+ would be great if you didnt want to pay for cable TV, are mostly interested in TV shows and are fine with being tied to the internet to watch them. Netflix is great is you want movies and the option for physical disc. iTunes Store has been great if you pay for cable but occasionally miss a show you need to catch up on and/or want/need to watch it offline.

So if I miss a TV show paying Apple 99¢ to watch that same show over 10x the price of Hulu+, likely in better quality and without commercials makes sense to me.

You nailed it perfectly. This is not initially a cable replacement, as most people would spend way more money and the uncertainty of their monthly TV bill. Most people like to be able to predict regular costs such as cable, which is one reason pay per view won't replace subscription plans.

iTV does look to be designed to let people watch an episode they missed.

If Apple ever manages to get subscriptions going, that might be a different issue depending on the content they line up.

You nailed it perfectly. This is not initially a cable replacement, as most people would spend way more money and the uncertainty of their monthly TV bill. Most people like to be able to predict regular costs such as cable, which is one reason pay per view won't replace subscription plans.

iTV does look to be designed to let people watch an episode they missed.

If Apple ever manages to get subscriptions going, that might be a different issue depending on the content they line up.

I agree, though I do think something will need to come along at some point to allow the majority of people to get rid of their cable service.

The problem I see with this is the cable companies could reasonably easily increase the amount of on demand content they have (last time I looked on Comcast I was actually amazed by how much they had added) and just counter the need for pretty much anyone to have an Apple TV.

If Apple could find a way that a lot of people would no longer need cable TV, that would be a real breakthrough.

There must be a huge number of people out there who aren't nearly as cheap as I am.

So many people complained about Hulu+ at $9.99 a month - that would only buy you ten episodes a month with this plan. Even light TV viewers would need to spend a lot of money to make it through a month at 99 cents/episode.

As much as I look forward to an iOS based TV gizmo, Apple wouldn't get me to buy shows at that price. I would think they would have to somehow outlaw Hulu and NetFlix to make it work at all.

I somewhat agree, except you have to keep in mind that most TV series only have 12-15 new episodes a year, so assuming you don't watch re-runs, you can't look at it on a monthly basis.

So instead of 10 shows a month, it's 120 shows a year. At 12-15 new shows per year, that's 8-10 series. Still not a great proposition, but what it may do, assuming the right channels are available, is allow you to drop down a tier in your cable company's offerings and then pick up the missing channels from iTunes. I could save probably $10-15/month on my cable bill by dropping a tier and only miss SciFi (I refuse to call is SyFy ) and BBC America. The savings would easily pay for the shows I'd miss on those two channels.

However, if all Apple offers are the mainstream networks that are part of the most basic cable lineup, I don't see it being any more successful than their current offerings.

Sorry but the painful truth is this, between the ancient and convoluted licensing agreements content owner have with other countries AND seeing how painful it is just to get some kind of agreement with ABC NBC CBS FOX in the US ... AND ... the fact that all the countries have different standards for broadcast format and video interfaces (or is everyone on HDMI already?) either way the formatted video is still different or at least it was with SD broadcasting.

Not that any of this matters anymore...

The STUDIOS SCREWED UP! They were SO dumb to fend off Apple offering them buckets of cash for access to their crappy and OLD programming... Thinking they could hold out for even bigger buckets of cash I guess... News Flash Hollywood: Unlike fine wine... broadcast TV programming does not get better with age it becomes irrelevant!

So why doesn't it matter?

Well the cable TV corporations are quickly swooping in with their OWN plans which include HBO offering all the HBO content FREE to current HBO subscribers via iPhone/iPad and likely iTV.. Then we have Netflix which is a paid service but $9 a month isn't a bad deal even if their catalog isn't the greatest. FINALLY we are now hearing from the cable giants, FIOS, DiSH and DirecTV (maybe others? Time Warner perhaps) who are ALL rolling out Apps for iOS devices that will allow access to the programming you subscribe to. In some cases global access and in some local but hey its a start!

Sorry Network BOZOS you screwed up and now you can keep your worthless content... Other players are quickly rushing in to the place once reserved exclusively for YOU! Ya see, even with an exclusive reservation from Steve ... it eventually looses it's clout and becomes worthless.

Hmmm I have to wonder if that comment that Steve said to the Google CEO pertains to this very issue... Didn't it go something like: "It doesn't matter they're gonna see it all anyway".

Apple is never going to satisfy a certain segment of the market. They're happy grazing endless channels, and think anything less is a rip-off. People have had all this content flung at them for decades, and now they think they need it, where I'd wager most people never watch half of the channels included in their cable package.

To have access to what Apple is providing here, which is on-demand movies & tv shows, in SD and HD- to have that option with traditional cable or satalite means your going to be paying $65+/mo [at least where I live], probably more if you want access to ALL the specialty channels like Discovery, Turner Classic Movies, HBO, etc.. Those channels are all part of separate packages. By the time you're done, you might be paying closer to $100.

I don't know about you, but I don't watch 65 shows a month. I own an AppleTV and have been happily renting HD movies for 3 years. I've never got into TV show, but it's only because I don't really want to buy them, I don't repeat watch and they'd be eating up space on the drive. This "only what you want" service would be great for me, and I'd be happy to dump cable once it's released. I'm paying $30 for basic service now, and I'd rather be spending that on what I want to watch, when I want to watch it.

I don't know about you, but I don't watch 65 shows a month. I own an AppleTV and have been happily renting HD movies for 3 years. I've never got into TV show, but it's only because I don't really want to buy them, I don't repeat watch and they'd be eating up space on the drive. This "only what you want" service would be great for me, and I'd be happy to dump cable once it's released. I'm paying $30 for basic service now, and I'd rather be spending that on what I want to watch, when I want to watch it.

I think you've both hit the nail on the head, and shown some of the problems.

If Apple are able to get all the shows I want, then I'd be much better off with paying 99c per show, given I watch 3 shows per week, and a Formula 1 Grand Prix every other week during the summer months.

The problem is, if they get say, the three shows but not the Formula 1, I'm no better off, because thanks to the ripoff way Comcast work, I would have to pay for all the basic channels, plus a bit extra for Speed TV to be able to watch the F1.

I'd love this system to work out, because I think the cable companies (and DirecTV) have been ripping people off for years and would like to see them get a bloody nose, but it all hinges on Apple getting pretty much all the content.

What you failed to realize is that this is perfect for those that already have cable and miss a show every once in a while. I'll gladly pay 99cents to watch a show I missed. It's worth it to not have to find someone who recorded it or even wait and find it on a torrent.

I'm not out to replace cable with an AppleTV. Why would I? You can't discover new shows with AppleTV or any other download on request service where you have to make a purchase decision for each show you want to watch.

For me = way. I simply don't watch that many "shows." A couple times a month maybe, and I'm just not into reruns.

What I'd really like the iTV to do is stream sports live in HD. 720p is just fine. And if the iOS is enabled, this could be done directly by the leagues. Their app could do the streaming, and add the iAds to boot. I'd pay for a stream of a hockey game or a football game...or even some of those isoteric olympic things that come around every 4 years...but it would need to be live, not taped coverage.

Get that, I cut the cable cord. Want.

I'm with you. There are lots of avenues to get recorded content, but only a couple solutions for streaming live events (e.g. mlb.com). Unfortunate then, that I see Apple simply trying to correct the mistakes they made in the first go-round. That's going to be hard enough already, without adding live events to the mix.

I pay $19 a month for cable. I watch a an average of 4 one hours shows a night plus late night until I fall asleep. If I dumped cable and opted for Apple iTV, I'd get about 5 days worth of television. I can TiVO (or in my case Windows MCE) any shows I want to watch at my leisure. I can record two shows simultaneously and I can copy them to HDD or DVD if I was so inclined. I can watch and record in 1080p (for those channels broadcasting in HD). I can timeshift through commercials so I have minimal commercial instrusion. I can watch Hulu and Netflix and any other Internet streaming television. And I can do it at a fraction of the cost of Apple iTV. I wish Apple success. I love the company. But I won't be an iTV purchaser or user. It doesn't make sense with my viewing habits and desires.

There is no doubt a market for a la cart 99 cent content. iTunes has proven that well enough. But, is Apple going to do the un-Apple-thinkable and sell an iTV box as a loss-leader? What kind of a box can you put together to sell for 99 bucks? At Apple margins, that's a 50 buck Bill Of Materials. If you took an iPod Touch, ripped off the screen, spread out the pieces parts on a cheap motherboard, threw in a power supply, plug, and a bunch of hdmi / audio connectors, can you imagine it costing less than a Ben Franklin? If, as has been speculated in the press, the "preferred" remote is an iPad, just what kind of processing power has to be in the box:

Apple is never going to satisfy a certain segment of the market. They're happy grazing endless channels, and think anything less is a rip-off. People have had all this content flung at them for decades, and now they think they need it, where I'd wager most people never watch half of the channels included in their cable package.

To have access to what Apple is providing here, which is on-demand movies & tv shows, in SD and HD- to have that option with traditional cable or satalite means your going to be paying $65+/mo [at least where I live], probably more if you want access to ALL the specialty channels like Discovery, Turner Classic Movies, HBO, etc.. Those channels are all part of separate packages. By the time you're done, you might be paying closer to $100.

I don't know about you, but I don't watch 65 shows a month. I own an AppleTV and have been happily renting HD movies for 3 years. I've never got into TV show, but it's only because I don't really want to buy them, I don't repeat watch and they'd be eating up space on the drive. This "only what you want" service would be great for me, and I'd be happy to dump cable once it's released. I'm paying $30 for basic service now, and I'd rather be spending that on what I want to watch, when I want to watch it.

If you think this is an "epic fail". You're a twit.

The system, as outlined, works for you because you do not watch a lot of TV. However it would probably not work for most people, as most people watch a lot of TV, and if they suddenly got a $200 bill they would freak.

You nailed it perfectly. This is not initially a cable replacement, as most people would spend way more money and the uncertainty of their monthly TV bill. Most people like to be able to predict regular costs such as cable, which is one reason pay per view won't replace subscription plans.

iTV does look to be designed to let people watch an episode they missed.

If Apple ever manages to get subscriptions going, that might be a different issue depending on the content they line up.

Don't you think though that whatever they announce kind of has to cover every need, and every use, if it's going to get any traction?

They've had a great product with Apple TV all this time, but it hasn't taken off like a rocket because it only covers a certain niche in the marketplace. It does what it does well, but it only does certain things. To remake or reinvent the TV market it seems to me that Apple has to offer something very much like a cable feed either on top of what it's giving from iTunes, or as part of the iTunes package.

iOS on iTV, as far as rumour goes, includes apps, so the "cable channels" with the free or ad supported content, might just be the ABC, NBC, CBS apps etc. in the new model. All the content would go out across the Internet and with a built in multimedia interactive advertisement service. If something like that happened, that's as close to 100% cable TV as your going to get, but with an app model instead of a channel model.

The system, as outlined, works for you because you do not watch a lot of TV. However it would probably not work for most people, as most people watch a lot of TV, and if they suddenly got a $200 bill they would freak.

Which is why I think there needs to be an advertiser and paid hybrid going on here.

One of the things with cable is you are effectively paying twice - once through your monthly sub, and a second time by having to watch the commercials.

There's no reason why iAd couldn't become a part of this too. If you only watch a few shows per week, it's probably worth paying the 99c. If you are a family who watch 100s of hours of shows per week, it's probably worth watching adverts.

Then this service isnt for you. If your intent is to watch copious amounts of TV then youre best to be connected to a service designed to satisfy that. If you want a service that allows for taking current content off the grid and allowing for an occasional á la carte service then the iTS may fit your needs.

Seriously people? Why is there this mental block that makes you think it must be everything your cable/sat, and Hulu and Netflix all rolled into one with the added benefit of being cheaper and allowing for local storage on a portable device? THERE IS NO ONE SERVICE THAT WILL EVER BE EVERYTHING TO EVERYONE.

Bingo, there are so many methods to get content now, it can be overwhelming. By using a combination of these different sources, it is possible to get cheap content and still watch everything I want to.

I regularly use my El Gato Tv tuner on my Mac mini for free over the air TV, Hulu (not Hulu+) in case there are multiple shows on at a time, and iTunes for shows that are only on cable channels or not available on Hulu. I can watch everything I want to and it costs less than $100 a year for the content.

Point is, this is a great addition as I never want to rewatch the content that I download from iTunes - a rental service would cut my yearly bill in half.

Then this service isn’t for you. If your intent is to watch copious amounts of TV then you’re best to be connected to a service designed to satisfy that. If you want a service that allows for taking current content off the grid and allowing for an occasional á la carte service then the iTS may fit your needs.

Seriously people? Why is there this mental block that makes you think it must be everything your cable/sat, and Hulu and Netflix all rolled into one with the added benefit of being cheaper and allowing for local storage on a portable device? THERE IS NO ONE SERVICE THAT WILL EVER BE EVERYTHING TO EVERYONE.

Agreed, but you know this could be pretty all embracing with a few extra options to the 99 cents per show. If there is also an option for unlimited viewing for a price = or < a month of cable. Plus a middle ground price for a block of time that equated to a lower price than the 99 cents, e.g. twenty shows in any 30 day period for $10.

Another point is the limitation of channel selections at lower prices in the current TV systems. I am one of many I talk to who don't watch enough TV to justify the FiOS / Cable type bill and hate the fact the lower tiers exclude HBO etc. The Apple system might be way better if the selection is from any source at the same price.

Of course this system will be available on any of my Apple devices too, iPad, iPhone and Macs as well as Large HDTV. I think this is going to be a 'game changer' ... to coin a well worn phrase accurately used whenever discussing Apple and SJ .

Also as in PaulMJohnson's comment about iAd - why not throw in a less expensive or free option with ads?

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

Wow. Where are you? My cable bill is upwards of $60. Fairly, I have HD service and lots of channels I don't watch, but the two I do are in the package that is insanely expensive. No premiums (HBO etc.) Sounds like you've got a deal.

I'm so used to getting shows for free thanks to advertising support, that I kind of reject the idea of paying for the same show just through a different delivery method (especially since you'll have to keep the original delivery method as well, at least for the time being).

Agreed. The dollar amount of per-episode purchasing is not what's holding Apple TV back from wider adoption. Until Apple can come to agreement with the networks on a subscription package to compete with cable and satellite, Apple's TV market will be pretty limited.

My Comcast bill is roughly $90 for cable/DVR and $50 for broadband. I would take a serious look at dropping my cable if Apple had a subscription package for $75 to $100 that included all or nearly all of the shows I watch now, live news, and live sports.

Don't you think though that whatever they announce kind of has to cover every need, and every use, if it's going to get any traction?

They've had a great product with Apple TV all this time, but it hasn't taken off like a rocket because it only covers a certain niche in the marketplace. It does what it does well, but it only does certain things. To remake or reinvent the TV market it seems to me that Apple has to offer something very much like a cable feed either on top of what it's giving from iTunes, or as part of the iTunes package.

iOS on iTV, as far as rumour goes, includes apps, so the "cable channels" with the free or ad supported content, might just be the ABC, NBC, CBS apps etc. in the new model. All the content would go out across the Internet and with a built in multimedia interactive advertisement service. If something like that happened, that's as close to 100% cable TV as your going to get, but with an app model instead of a channel model.

Yes, it would have to be appealing to a large percentage to gain traction, which is why I do not think it will gain a lot of traction in its current form.

First is content. Apple would have to be able to offer at least most of the content that cable currently does. However, as much as I like Apple, they are going to have a hard time (and supposedly have had a hard time) convincing studios to line up with this. Besides, how do you think the cable companies are going to react? They are not going to stand by and let Apple "steal" a percentage of their customers.

Second is pricing. Like I said, most people like predictability in their bills so they can have a budget. Every month, I know I spend $x dollars for cable, $X for cell, etc. Pay per view introduces uncertainty into what was a fixed cost, and could lead to nasty surprises. If Apple could put together a subscription plan, then I think it would have a much better chance, but pay per view will not work for "regular" TV.

Lastly, I worry about bandwidth/server issues if this were to really take off. Imagine 100 million customers trying to all sorts of different shows. Heck, my Oceanic/Time Warner Cable has issues delivering PPV movies, and Hawaii only has about 1 million people.